Inconsistency always amuses me. It’s one of the funniest elements of humour. The sayings of Yogi Berra are consistently inconsistent. That’s why we laugh at them. That’s why we ought to laugh at the sayings of progressives. They are consistently inconsistent, too.
When Yogi Berra says things like “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded,” I laugh until I cry. When progressives say things like gays and lesbians can’t change their sexual orientation, because they’re born with it, but males and females can change their sex, even though they’re born with it, I cry even more. Of course, I do. Although inconsistency is amusing, the reality it reveals can be sobering.
What makes the progressive position laughable is the fickle premise that characteristics we are born with are inseparable from our identity. What makes it even more laughable is that no one has been able to show that homosexual orientation is innate. But a DNA test can show that sex is.
I’m especially amused when what progressives practice is inconsistent with what they preach. If they had principles, equality would be at the forefront. Progressives preach it endlessly. Yet they violate it when they bless sex-change operations for dissatisfied males and females but curse reparative therapy for repentant gays and lesbians.
Although they don’t have principles, progressives have preferences. Whereas they’re for sex-change, they’re against species change, at least for now. If a man thinks he’s a woman, they encourage him to wear dresses, mate with other men, and use women’s rest rooms; and they charge with heterosexism and sexual stereotyping anyone who says he has a disorder.
But if he thinks he’s a horse, a bull or a dog, they don’t encourage him to wear saddles, mate with cows, or urinate against trees. They encourage him to seek psychiatric help; and they don’t charge with speciesism or species stereotyping anyone who says he has a disorder.
I don’t mean to suggest that they should favour either change. I mean only that their position is hilariously inconsistent with treating everyone equally. So is their position on practices ranging from affirmative action in education and employment to zero tolerance for pro-life initiatives. The former privileges women, and visible minorities over white males. The latter privileges the born over the unborn. If that’s equality, I can’t imagine what inequality looks like.
Progressives preach diversity as much as they do equality. They especially preach racial, cultural, and sexual diversity. Yet they fail to practice it when they ignore racial differences in athletic prowess, cultural differences in economic success, and sexual differences in parenting.
When blacks dominate in professional basketball and whites do the same in Olympic swimming, progressives look the other way. I don’t know how they can look the other way while watching athletic events, but they’re good at it. They’re also good at overlooking cultural minorities, like Jews in the West, and overseas Chinese in the East, when they economically outdo the majorities they live among. The same goes for research which shows that, compared with their spouses, mothers are better at nurturing their children and fathers at challenging them.
When they ignore differences in performance between races, cultures and sexes, respectively, progressives miss what is most significant in diversity. Nevertheless, they have to ignore them. Otherwise, their preferences for diversity and equality would clash. Even progressives can see the inconsistency in that.
However, they overlook another inconsistency hidden by the rhetoric of sexual diversity. Because they’re huge fans of alternative family forms, progressives champion single-parent households. That’s diversity, all right. But single-parent households are five times more likely than two-parent families to be poor. That’s not equality, all wrong.
Progressives are masters of deadpan humour. Without smiling, let alone laughing, some of them make a big fuss when birds die after landing on oilsands tailing ponds but not after flying into wind turbines. I guess, as wind is the more environmentally friendly energy source, they think the disparity in their reaction is justified. I wonder what the birds think.
Oh, I know that when all aspects of production are considered, fossil fuels kill a large number of birds. But what about the tens of millions killed each year when they collide with windows, not to mention the millions more that succumb to communication towers, automobiles and cats? I haven’t noticed progressives making much fuss about that.
Anyhow, if they’re serious about saving birds, they should volunteer as scarecrows at the deadliest sites. I think they’d be good at it.
They sure scare me.